06/22/2021
Posted • I never quite understood the advantage of trademarking ONE name to a procedure. No disrespect to surgeons who do! It’s true, we all do things slightly different so in the end, the technique does belong to us. There’s also something to be said for the “The ONE Thing” approach: when you want the absolute best chance to succeed at anything you want, your approach should always be the same. I guess it also sounds good to have a catchy name from a marketing perspective.
I just think this works better for mattresses than it does for faces.
Doing facial rejuvenation can’t be done with the “one approach for all” because it implies a standardized technique to all cases.
The patient pictured here had the following: deep plane face lift, deep neck lift, microfat grafting to lower lids, temples, lateral cheek, jawline and chin, non-excisional (fat grafting) upper eyelid surgery, SNIF to the forehead and nano fat to the lower lids.
Could I really do it justice by calling it by just one name? However catchy “The Roskies Rejuvenating Reverse Raise” may seem, I prefer to use the medical terminology for each case to demonstrate the nuances we consider in every single surgery. I also think it pays homage to the pioneers of the techniques who paved the way (tagged in the photo). No two surgeries are the same and so I think we shouldn’t do them injustice by calling them the same.
What do you think? Am I going to trademark the wacky “4R” lift or not? I like to think my results speak for themselves, so why should I have to?
🦏➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
👨🏼⚕️Michael Roskies, MD, MSc, FRCSC
🥼Medical Director
☎️416-922-2868 x 220
📱Inquiries: info@drmikeroskies.com
📍Toronto, ON